tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN June 1, 2010 10:00am-1:00pm EDT
-- notwithstanding the spike year of 2005. host: samuel gerdano, thank you for joining us. please come back again. we will continue to show you the most hotly contested races and debates in the primaries. one of the debates will take place today in south carolina, a republican primary debate. there are four candidates. live coverage in florence, south carolina. our thanks to wbpw for allowing us to simulcast the debate. thanks for being with us on this tuesday morning, the first day of in june. we are back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern time, 4:00 for viewers on the west coast. enjoy your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national
cable satellite corp. 2010] . . >> on c-span, as we take a look at the gulf of mexico oil spill. courtesy of the coast guard. president obama will deliver a statement on this bill this afternoon in the white house rose garden. his statement will come after he meets with b.p. oil spill commission chairs. that will be live at 12:15 eastern. at 1:00 eastern, a live simultaneous of the radio show "inside new orleans" about the spill in the gulf. and later at 7:00 p.m. eastern, we are live with the south carolina governor republican primary debate. four candidates are running for the republican nomination to replace governor mark sanford.
that's live at 7:00 on c-span. >> british prime minister and conservative party leader david cameron fields questions from members of parliament in his first prime minister's questions as the head of a coalition government. live from the british house of commons wednesday, at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> carl bernstein and bob woodward in june, 1972, as reporters for "the washington post," they began investigating the watergate break-in and the ties to the nixon administration. 38 years later both are still reporting. from columbus, ohio, this is about an hour and 10 minutes. >> bob, i'm carl. get that out of the way. i think the best thing we can do given what people seem to be asking us, latey, particularly
about what -- could this happen again? could there be another watergate story? to tell you a little bit about what we did. and what happened. because it's very anomalous in terms of the way journalism worked then and in terms of the way it works now. we were metropolitan reporters at the "washington post". i happened to be in the office on that day, june 17 or 18, 1972. bob was called in by one of the editors, the city editor, to work on story. >> it was a nice day and it was a saturday and the editors in the morning said who would be dumb enough to come in and work today? and my name immediately came to their lips. >> and i was already in the office because as usual i was
late handing in another piece. and there was a good story, obviously better than the piece i was working on. and -- >> you ever got that piece done, did you? >> i think i did. i think that was -- anyway. well, five men had been arrested in the headquarters of the national democratic party wearing rubber gloves. they found on the police and suits, business suits, and they found on their persons as the police report would have it $100 bills in sequence, as well as wiretapping equipment. so obviously this was a story not about your average burglary. i'll let you pick it up. >> and the approach we took was
the police reporter approach. what happened? what can we find out? and it was very incremental. just some examples, another reporter at the post, police reporter, named gene, found out from the police there were these little cryptic entries in the address books of two of the burglars and -- about howard hunt who had turned out had been the operational director of the watergate team, but it said w. house dash h. hunt. and as carl and i looked at this, w. house, and carl said, hum, w. house could only be one of two things.
and he called the whorehouse and i called the white house. >> the rest is history. >> this was our empirical approach. what happened, who was involved, and the idea was to see how high it went, because just on its face this was not a low-level operation, there was something gold plated about it. and what was the most goldplated operation in washington at that time? the nixon re-election committee. so we went at looking at clues, building sources, getting specifics i think kind of the key was money. where did the money come from? who approved it? tell them about the -- we did in september, 197 , one of the most
iiportant stories we did, i think, showing that john mitchell, who had been the attorney general for nixon, had been nixon's campaign manager, that he controlled this secret fund of at least $700,000 in cash that was kept in a safe. you have the same thing here at the school, don't you? $700,000. no accountability. >> the important thing to start with the premise is that we had this advantage of not being national political reporters. at the time there was a common belief among the national political reporters in washington that there was a so-called new nixon. and that there existed this perfect well oiled white house machinery that was really kind of incapable of mistakes.
and here was this break-in that logic, particularly after we had found the money, we had traced some of the money to the committee for the re-election of president nixon, logic would tell you this has got something to do with the white house. yet the conventional belief, including among our fellow reporters, both at the "washington post" on the national staff and in town generally, there are about 2,500 national reporters in washington at that time. >> many people called this the watergate caper, like it was kind of a joke. >> it made no sense at first. because mcgovern was going to be the democratic nominee for president. it seemed certain nixon would beat him.
why would any kind of campaign chicanery go on? so in september we were able to establish that the president's campaign manager and former attorney general of the united states had controlled the secret fund, paid for the bugging at watergate and other undercover activities against the democrats. and washington was a different place then. you could make a phone call and get john mitchell on the telephone. and i had a phone number for him. he was in new york. and i thought i could get him because on that occasion the white house, as it had throughout the first weeks after the break-in, had made the issue of watergate our conduct at the "washington post" rather than the conduct of the president and his mean. and every day the president or others in his entourage would get up and attack us and "the washington post" for making up fiction and having a political
agenda. so they did it on this occasion, too, when we wrote this story that said mitchell had controlled this fund, and so i called mitchell and i said, mr. mitchell, we have a story -- >> he got him. i think he was asleep. >> he said what time is it? i said 11:00. he said 11:00 when? and i said at night, sir. he said, oh. he might have had a pop or two. possible. so i said we have a story in tomorrow's paper i would like to read to you and carl bernstein from "the washington post" and have your response. and i began reading, he said go ahead. i began reading john m. mitchell while attorney general of the united states controlled a secret fund, and he said, gee -- jesus. i ran a few more words by which said john f. mitchell attorney general of the united states controlled the secret fund that
paid for undercover activities against the political opposition. and i got that far and he said jeeee-sus. and i got to the end of the first paragraph by that time the drift of the story was unmistakable. and he said jesus christ, all that crap. it's been denied. are you going to put that in the paper? if you print that, katie graham, referring to katherine graham, the publisher of the "washington post," will get her tit caught in a big fat wringer. i wasn't accustomed to speaking to towns -- to attorneys general , and i kind of instinctively jumped back from the phone myself because of fear from my own parts aside from mrs. graham's because this guy certainly had the power to squeeze them. and then he went on to say, when
this campaign is over we are going to do this story on you boys, too, and hung up the phone. of course in retrospect it's an amusing story, but i have to tell you we were 28 years old at the time and it was about the most chilling moment i think in all my years in the now 50 years in journalism than i ever experienced. this was a man of enormous power. and the threat was real. i believed the threat in terms of trying to be intimidating. so i called ben bradley, the editoo of the "washington post," to tell him what had happened in this exchange. and he said mitchell really said that? i said, yeah. he says you have it in your notes? yeah, it's all in the notes. and he said, ok, put it all in the paper except her tit. >> i think the language was leave out her tit. >> leave out her tit. and that's what we did. and the next morning mrs. graham came up to my desk and wasn't
used to seeing her around my desk, either, and she said, carl, do you have any more messages for me? and it was also just before that story that when we had the information about mitchell and we started to understand about this -- the money and how it went from more than just the bugging at watergate, a couple days earlier we were discussing how to write this story and we met bob and i in the vending machine room off the newsroom floor and i put a dime in to get a cup of coffee, also to show you a difference in that year -- era, you could get a cup of coffee for a dime. i felt a chill go down my spine literally. it's the only time i ever felt a chill. >> mitchell jumped out of the vending machine.
>> that's right. and i said, oh, my god, this president's going to be impeached. this is about eight weeks before the break-in. and woodward said oh, my god,er' right. -- god, you're right. there was some logic to it. and woodward said we can never use that word impeachment around this newsroom lest anybody think we have an agenda. but the awe of that moment stays with me. one of the reasons is, and bob can talk about this a little bit, because watergate was not a caper. it was about a fundamental attempt by the president of the united states to misuse and abuse the constitution, obstruct justice, and more than anything to try and undermine the very electoral process of our
government. >> this is an important part of it. there were dirty tricks. there were all kinds of things aimed at the democrats who were going to run against nixon. and they wanted what they perceived, i think accurately, to be -- they wanted the democratic nominee to be george mcgovern. so they went after senator muskie, who was the frontrunner, and sabotaged -- and spied on -- i mean they had 50 spies out in the campaigns writing false press releases. they literally had the guy who was senator muskie's chauffeur who would drive him around, but also bring documents from musky's senate office over to his campaign headquarters. and there were so many documents that the nixon campaign wanted copies of, the chauffeur i think
called chair one for some reason, a code name, rented an apartment full-time, and bought a xerox machine, and then -- the trips between would photograph documents for the nixon campaign so they knew about speeches, strategic plans, personnel shakeups. and everything. if you were to list the things they did to musky, they threw him off the rails and by giving the weaker candidate -- if you really look at it they rigged or tampered with everyone's vote by saying this was not just something done to have fun or was not just dirty tricks, it was a strategic plan aimed at getting the weakest nominee, and they did it. >> it's hard to imagine how
different that time is, and yet we are asked continually, could this story happen again? and my answer always is, could reporters do this story again? absolutely. that it really what great reporting is is the best attainable version of the truth. it's very simple phrase, and it's a complex process, but the basic elements of the process are really knocking on doors. it's really about the reporters going to the sources. and what we did is very early in the game we got hold of a list of the employees of president nixon's re-election committee.
and it was treated almost like a classified document. it had their phone numbers and room numbers, and we were able by transposing the phone numbers and room numbers and the names to almost make a chart of who worked for whom. and then we went out at night usually an knocked on doors and tried to see these people in their homes. and one of the first things that happened is we intercountered their fear that told us more than many of them were telling us with their information that something momentous was here. >> what's interesting, we were gathering facts, supported by the editors, by katherine graham , and her anatomy, at the post. she had a lot on the line.
it's really important to understand is the institution of "the washington post." some truly an independent newspaper, an independent voice. and we could have found out these things and editors and a publisher owner could have said no, we are not going to publish them. they said, no, we have this responsibility. they really turned us loose. and we were able to work full-time on this. very unusual for two particularly young reporters like ourselves. and i remember in january of 1973 we had written all these stories or almost all of them essentially saying there's criminal -- major criminal conspiracy being run and conducted in the nixon white house. this was not believed to a level
that i think, since we did not acknowledge between ourselves -- >> our colleagues. >> over on the national staff people were looking at us as some kind of cooks. >> and telling ben bradley, the editor of the paper, he should assign the story to the narble because we were endangering the future of the newspaper. >> but katherine asked us up to lunch one day and carl had to go to a funeral. and i remember this lunch we knew her a little bit, not that well, and sat down and this is really an important management story. she blew my mind with questions she asked about watergate. she had read everything that we had written. she knew henry kissinger who was the national security advisor for nixon. she even read something in the "chicago tribune" she said.
and i wonder why is she reading the damn "chicago tribune"? knowing what chuchi does -- but she did, she was sweeping all this in. and i was really stunned and later we described it as this capacity to manage mind on, hands off. intellectually involved in what we are doing but not telling us how to report or bradley how to edit. and then at the end she had the killer question. which was when is the whole story going to come out? when are we going to find out the whole truth? and i said to carl, and i felt very strongly because the burglars were being paid for their silence, clearly criminal conspiracy, they compartmentalized information. people were frightened, trule
fearful to talk to us about -- truly fearful to talk p to us about this. nigh answer when is all this going to come out is never. and she had this really awful -- >> probably never. you said never? >> i said never. when does the truth come out? rarely. so i said never. so she looked at me, wounded pain look on her face, said never? don't tell me never. i left the lunch a motivated employee. but it was not a threat. it was a statement of purpose. and what she said is, use all your resources, i'll use of this resources, we use the resources of this paper, and we get to the bottom of it. we have an obligation to journalism, to ourselves, but it goes beyond that.
if we had -- if we truly believe a criminal conspiracy being run out of the white house, we have to validate that. we have to get the full story. and what is important about that for a newspaper or any organization, you got -- what business are you in? she realized the business we're in is really digging and getting to the bottom of things. not kind of just printing the daily press release. and the support that added to, that fortitude, that was x factor in watergate. >> i think this gets to where we are today, perhaps, in some ways. i went to work 50 years ago this year at the opposition paper in
washington where i spent the first four years of my career, the "washington star" which was also a great newspaper. and this notion of the best attainable version of the truth really being what we do, what we are about. yes, we have comics. yes, but everything goes into this idea of we are trying to look at the world, the country around us, our community, and describe it in terms of what's really going on. that's our responsibility. and there's a public trust that comes with that. i don't want to be nostalgic about another age because great journalism is the exception not the rule. sometimes even good jourmism might be the exception -- journalism might be the exception. but i think this notion of what newspapers and what the press was about there was an element, commonly believed about our basic function. >> i still think it's there. the problem is the business
model, newspapers aren't making money or much money. >> i would argue with you on that. i think it's there in much less regard. because in fact while newspapers were still making 19% as a margin of profit four years ago, i think that still was the average -- >> but now it's zero. >> certainly. but even four years ago i think we had lost in the business as chains accumulated more and more newspapers, particularly in communities. that the best attainable version of the truth became less and less the ideal in our business. happily we have had several newspapers, "the washington post," "new york times," the "wall street journal" where that
has remained the case. and those papers, in many regards, are better than they were at the time of watergate in many qualitative ways, i think, of their daily report. but -- >> so you would agree with me. >> one of the things -- when it came -- what the nixon people then did was "the washington post" had just become a public company and they -- the nixon white house made it clear that if we pursued this story any further and continued to do this kind of reporting, that it intended, the white house, to see that the television licenses, which were the economic lifeblood of the country, of the company would be revoked by the f.c.c. and mrs. graham's response to that was, no. we are going to continue doing
what we do. and when our records were subpoenaed by the nixon re-election committee in a lawsuit, mrs. graham said to us, i'm going to take possession of your notes. >> so can't you see the picture of her getting out of her limousine going into the d.c. jail? >> but the point is she was willing to take the responsibility for the institution. and does that situation exist today? i think much less so. i think also that we have a media environment in which we are losing to some extent because of the pressure of speed , maffered -- manufactured controversy, gossip, the web partly which i think is a great
reporting platform, but we also need as we move to these platforms to bring to them the standards of the best of the old journals. >> in rebuttal, what i'm saying is there are very good examples of journalism. and the spirit is there. and if you used to have a staff of 200 all of a sudden you have a staff of 100, which is what is in lots of newspapers, they can't do the digging and in-depth reporting, but i think the vitality is there and my argument is that the people on the business side need to find that business model and things will get better. but i agree with you there is not enough of this, and the culture of impatience and speed. a a we have --
>> we have set a tone here that can now enable you to go at us. >> our guests will be pleased to take your questions. if you have a question we ask you to come to one of the microphones here so everyone can hear. who would like to ask the first question? >> if you don't get up at the microphone i'm going to go and ask carl a question. >> someone's got to go first, so i guess i will. in the movie, "all the president's men" there was a scene in there where the editor shouted across the room and referred to you collectively as woodstein, is that true? >> yes. >> thank you. >> it was a no-brainer. woodstein. the national editor who quite frankly didn't like what we were doing for a long time used to
call us the gold dust twins. not sure what that meant. >> 40,000 journalists being laid off in the last year alone, what do you see the future of journalism being today? where do you think we are headed? >> what was the first part of your question about being laid off? >> 40,000 journalists have been laid off in the last year. >> 40,000 journalists have been laid off at traditional journalistic institutions in the last year, and my guess is there's that many more who call themselves journalists who are doing work on the web. i think that we are in a new era in which there is movement all over the place. and that some of the great traditional journalistic institutions are going to persevere and put out most of their product on the web. let me ask a question here. of those of you who are
students, how many of you get most of your news from the web? and of those of you who are students, how many of you read a daily newspaper in a newspaper form? >> very few. >> there's part of the answer to your question right there. >> a statement first. my firm belief is that this country will never see your likes again. that may be pessimistic in nature, but it leads into my question. in a country that is concerned about whether the president of the united states is a citizen of this country, was born a citizen, is there room for investigative journalism that makes any sense anymore? we have people that are -- that no longer can concentrate on the importants of being american
citizens, and the essence of being americans, so where are your voices? your voices, the only investigative reporter i can think of today and he's a voice in the wilderness is michael isa coff. >> i disagree very much with your characterization. >> i have been disagreed with many times. >> and here's why. i think that there is no question that we have had particularly in the last 15, 20 years a dumbing down of our political culture to some extent and also of our culture generally. and particularly of our media culture. but the idea that we have been uninterrupted a nation in which the citizenry and its media are paragons of great wisdom through our history, i'm not nearly so
sure that what we are seeing now is anomalous. that there has always been a rag eddie -- raggedy tendency in our politics, whether you talk about father coughlin, that we had power moved between right and left, that -- and also as i said earlier i think great journalism has always been an exception. really good journalism also has been somewhat of an exception, so i think we get a little too nostalgic about a golden age. the question is, if you remember when we had done the preponderance of our reporting, nobody in this country paid much attention to it. indeed the information was there to connect the nixon white house to -- he's going to disagree
with me. >> no. i'm not going to disagree with you. here are the -- we asked the question in trying to recount some anecdotes from working on the watergate story, what's our approach? how do we go about it? and it's empirical. and i still think there is lots of empirical reporting and it really is the key. i did four books on president bush and his wars, and i have the luxury of time to spend a year or two getting documentation, getting memos, getting minute notes that would describe exactly what wept on. for three of those books bush allowed me to come and interview him for hours about what he did and how he made these decisions. i think it kind of goat lost --
kind of got lost, somewhat my fault, the extent to which he acknowledged particularly in the latter years the extent to which he had become disengaged from the presidency. i'll give you an example because we published it in the post, it's in the last bush book because it shows something, and i think it applies, or may apply to the presidency in general, and that is the fatigue factor. you just get tired. and when i interviewed bush for the last book, the big question was, how did you decide on sending 30,000 troops for the surge in iraq? and it was kind of the key strategic decision he made in the last two years in the iraq war. and steve, his national security advisor, intervened and very
self-effacing man, very unusual for him to intervene, and he said, that was worked out between meal, hadley, and general pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. now, you know what w.t.f. means don't you, what the -- i'm thinking, what the? hadley worked it out? where's the president. so i turned to bush. here's what bush said. ok, i don't know that. w.t.f. moment two. and then he said, i'm not at those meetings you'll be happy to hear. i was just delighted. why should the president bother himself. and right from the transcript, i got other things to do. >> ride the bike.
>> right out of his own mouth is an acknowledgement that he disengaged from the presidency. and it's kind of -- i think people didn't want to deal with it. i think people -- he was going out of office. he was leaving. but when i interviewed him, he had seven months more in the office, in the oval office i kept looking around his chair to see if he had a suitcase packed. because he was out of there. and i'm trying to connect this to the point that there are lots of ways to find out what really went on, and this is out of the president's own mouth, people went and said was this a concession? and to a certain extent it was. >> i think -- it was very
revealing about bush. but i think in answer to a really important question that you just raised, what happens when the knowledge is out there, as in this case, and the people of the country don't respond the way we think they ought to or the way that one might reasonably expect people to react to a group of circumstances or facts? and the same thing happened in watergate is what i'm getting at. that there was no uprising against nixon until they late. but there was, finally, and where i'm going is the following. i believe that really the last time that we saw the american system really work in this country was in watergate. the press did its job. a great judge in the judiciary
did his job and compelled some answers from these burglars. the congress of the united states did its job, and initialated -- initiated an investigation of the campaign activities, including the president's, watergate committee. the congress then went on to have a house impeachment committee which continued to investigate and then the committee voted articles of impeachment against the president. the supreme court of the united states led by chief justice appointed by the president of the united states decided that the president was not above the law and had to turn over his tapes through a special prosecutor, and the president of the united states resigned with bipartisan impetus and desire for that to happen. that, i think, is a significant
difference in terms of what we have today, because i think our political system is not functioning -- >> as it was designed. >> what i'm saying is that i think, one, that the idea that you could get a supreme court decision is questionable. the same decision, i'm not sure. the tapes. don't know. but the notion that you would have an impeachment proceeding and an investigation during the bush years it seems to me that -- i'm not suggesting that bush should not have been impeached, but certainly there was cause for real congressional oversight of investigation into how we had gone into this war, of many of the things that were going on. >> having spent eight years of my life on this, the problem
with that is the congress of the united states passed resolutions authorizing the iraq war three to one in the house. so how are they going to launch some sort of investigation or impeachment of bush for doing what they let him do? >> the conduct of the war afterwards as well. i think there was plenty of room for congressional investigation. but i think that we all know and see how the congress of the united states is hamstrung today and gridlocked. >> a question? >> yeah. you kind of touched on this before, but with the internet with the -- >> pull the microphone down just so we can hear. >> like everyone everyday people are getting more of a voice on the internet and people turn to the internet for their news, do
you think that journalism is being compromised at all by people getting news from people who aren't necessarily trained and aren't necessarily held accountable? >> i didn't question the question, sorry. getting an echo. >> with the internet, with people blogging about the news who aren't necessarily trained journalists, do you think journalism is being compromised at all? >> do you think that journalism is being compromised by people who aren't trained journalists blogging on internet? no. i think there is a different problem. that we don't have enough news institutions, whether they are on the web or whether they are print that -- in which staffs of journalists are encouraged to do the hard work of good reporting and knock on doors and be good listeners and go out in search
of the best attainable version of the truth. i think that is the problem. and it's -- and the web has made it a greater problem rather than a lesser one. at the same time i think that there is far more information available today as a question of serving it out on the web. you can do great things like you want to know about what's going on in the middle east. you want to rely on american newspapers. you go to al jazeera. if you want to look what the arab point of view is go to one in israel. it's a different environment. again i think there is also a tendency for nostalgia. somebody asked earlier about, well, you didn't used to have rush limbaugh and you didn't used to have o'reilly and all these loud voices. i would say in other eras you had the trumpets of columnists
like drew pearson, that we have a continuation of a noisy politics and a noisy opinionated journalism. and that informs to some extent a process of common theory in this country that has been ongoing through our history. >> it may be different now. next question. >> i want to thank you for my college years. my question is motionly geared toward mr. woodward. i have read many of the books you have written since watergate and more excerpts from mags than i'd like -- magazines than i'd like to think about. can you tell me how you get officials to tell you things that probably will lose them
their jobs? >> good question. and the whole reason we are here today. >> we know it's not charm. you can eliminate that. what happens, as i said earlier, i have time to work on these things. i can get the details from somebody who took notes at a national security council meeting. i can talk to somebody else and find five other people who were at the meeting. in the case of bush i would send him 20-page memos saying this is what i have found out. i'd like to talk to you. my colleagues at the "post" i remember one of them said you sent george w. bush a 20-page memo? you are crazy. you don't you know from his biography all his years at yale, harvard business school there's
no evidence he ever read anything that long? what makes you think he's going to start now? but he did. and i spent hours going over it with him and other people involved and again this empirical method. i want to find out what happened. i think another technique that works is to take people as seriously as they take themselves. to know who they are. if somebody's written a foreign affairs article 20 years ago, i'll read it and ask them about it. i'm working on a book on president obama now which will be out in the fall. which will have the exact kind of this is what happened, this is what people said. this is what's in the memos. and it's what carl says. just reporting, knocking on
doors at night. i told this story, when i was working on one of the last bush book there was a general who would not talk to me. i sent emails. i left messages. nothing. so i found out where he lived. and in the old technique of -- >> "all the president's men." >> i knocked on the door. the best time is 8:18 at night. because people have -- they have eaten if they are at home. they haven't launched another activity. it's really psychologically the perfect time. so i knocked on this general's door and he opened the door and he looked at me and you know -- i'm going to quote him, he said, are you still doing this? and i nodded.
and you know what he did? why did he do that? i'm serious about it. i want to understand his point of view. and i think there's a little bit of the secret chair in most people in this country. >> people want to know the truth. reporters tend to be, and i think it's something that television originally made much worse, television reporting, where fellow reporters come and throw a microphone in front of your case and have an idea their purpose there is to manufacture controversy not to learn what's really happened, when in fact we need to be good listeners. and that's the other thing. people -- given the chance to tell you their story, our sources in watergate were not democrats opposed to richard nixon. they were people who worked for nixon. and for the most part believed
in him. if you accord people a certain respect, and also -- another thing, common sense goes a long way i think in being a reporter. figure out who the right people are to see. go see them and listen to them. >> next question. >> in one of classes on campus we were discussing the two of you and how the white house press corps had a deep-seated hatred for you because you broke the greatest story probably ever for the presidency. my question for you is how do you rate currently the white house press corps? are they doing their job? are they informing the voters? >> it is a really hard job. and carl has made this point back in watergate they had this apparatus to keep us from talking to people and to defend. it's even a better more
well-founded, more professional group of p.r. people, spin doctors who are there. and you have to penetrate. but i think covering the white house daily is a job and a half already, an then to find a way to get behind the scenes, difficult. >> it's not just the white house press corps but let's look at the bush presidency. that certainly the run-up or whatever you want to call it to the war was an awful moment for the american press in terms of the wmd story -- w.m.d. story, missing it, not really -- the most important thing we do as reporters is decide what is news. and leading up to the war i think we did a pretty terrible job about deciding what is news. >> just to confess, i knew as much as anyone about it and i felt myself mightily for not
being more aggressive in asking the questions. carl talks about common sense. it was ingrained there's w.m.d. in iraq. people asserted that i had some clues about it. and failed to pursue them. and i agree with that. that doesn't mean the c.i.a. and the white house didn't screw up. they did. >> but there's a larger point here. and that is once the war started to go badly, i believe that the reporting on the bush presidency, my good number of reporters, partly by bob but also some great reporting by "the new york times," other news organizations, the reporting on the bush presidency, which was a highly secretive presence, was an awful lot of mendacity. and a real dislike for the molest. almost everything we know about
the bush presidency we know from the press. we don't know it from congressional hearings. we don't know it from anything candid that the bush white house ever put out. we know it from the press. so i think the reporting on the bush presidency actually after the first six months of the war is a pretty honorable part of the history of washington reporting. >> mr. woodward you mentioned there needs to be an adjusted business model for the current news industry. what a most successful one would be? >> how old are you? >> 22. >> you're 22. i'm 67. you figure it out. it's your job. ok.
seriously, the people who did google and facebook and so forth, it's a new generation. it's tough. it's a big problem. i'm counting on you. what's your name? >> meredith. >> go to it. >> let me follow-up on that. what advice would you have for somebody starting out in investigative journalism these days? >> how old are you? no, i'm kidding. >> what advice? we have talked about this. we don't think investigative reporting is a special category. it's in-depth reporting. it's reporting. go find a newspaper, a news organization and work and dig in and enjoy it. and when you get on to something, whatever it is, don't let up. >> i have a question. how many people here voted for president obama?
how many voted for john mccain? how many of you are pleased with the job that obama is doing? and how many of you would like to see a different president? >> how many are not happy with the job obama is doing? >> i was just curious. we know who we are talking with here. ok. >> now we can pander a little more. we talked about this today. it's a great job being a journalist. you make momentary entries into people's lives when they are interesting. and guess what? you get to get out when they cease to be interesting.
doctors, lawyers. you're stuck with the well -- >> appendixes. >> yeah. routine. you go into a newsroom and i think this is one of the reasons we love the news, because it's electric. what's going on? what's happening? what don't we know about it? what is our approach and our method to find out? >> most of it, i'm 16 years old when i walk in the newsroom. i remember to this day. the hum of that place. and i didn't get the job. i was going to apply for the job. i got it four months later as a copy boy. and the guy who gave me the tour, who was my prospective hirer, he took me over to a cart and the newspapers had just come from the mail room off the
press, he said take one. and they were warm. from just having been printed. i'll never forget that. >> the warm newspaper. >> got them on your website. over. >> next question. >> regarding the government's insistence on the good news story regarding our two wars in iraq and afghanistan, what is that doing to the government in large, and our country and the state of journalism? and why are a majority of the major news outlets buying into the good news story? >> what's the good news story? >> that things are going well. >> i haven't read that lately. >> i missed that. >> every once in a while the president might say it but even
he doesn't say it too often. he says this is a pretty rough grind. i think that in fact, especially of late, there have been stories about afghanistan about how difficult this mission is and also that right now in iraq there is terrible internal strife affecting the withdrawal of our own troops. and obama is saying we are going to continue to withdraw despite -- >> and the economic conditions. just ttlk to the people at goldman sachs about the ability to sell a good news story. i think most of the news is pretty grim and i think people realize that. certainly reporters do. >> thank you for being here. tell everybody we are nearing the end of our time here.
probably can't take too many more questions here. >> i'll be quick. i sort of think of you gentlemen as the lenon-mccartney of journalism. >> ham and eggs. go ahead. >> well, it seems to me that what i know about you, what little i know, that you sort of have a creative tension. along the lines ever lennon d.c. mccartney and i'm wondering about the creative tension, political tension that came to bear when you were working on the watergate project, for lack of a better term, and how you think that might have had a positive or negative impact on the work that you did? >> good question. first ever all i think both of us -- first of all i think both of us would say today that team reporting and group reporting can produce results and give you an extra element that is pretty
hard to beat. in our case, we asked this question for the first time a few minutes ago. if it had been two different people, would the same results have occurred? i doubt it. maybe. but i doubt it. things happen on their own time. particular circumstances. but in our case there's no question that there was in this time and place a remarkable synergy, whatever you want to call it, a complementary blending of skills, deficiencies , everything worked -- >> we are dear friends now. but as you can see there's still disagreements. >> which is good. >> tension, did you notice? but we come at things -- >> differently.
>> different way. >> which is terrific. >> i think at the beginning when we were working together we kind of both, what the hell is that? my reaction now, and i think yours, is, well, ok, let's maybe -- maybe that's right or let's look at it that way. and so forth. >> very early i think each of us came to understand that the other had a it was easy to respect both the outlook, skills, and methodology of the other. >> we often switch roles. that is the other thing. >> i had been a reporter not to years -- two years.
quite frankly, i worked for a graduate journalism school and you taught me many, many things. sometimes with a hammer and sometimes by example. in terms of their relationship, it was, what happened here? what is going on? a look at that story just on the face, the mysteries compound we were in charge of explaining the what really happened here. who caused this? what does it mean? that is why we loved it. we were both unmarried.
karl had his warm newspaper to go home to at night trade i had no one to go home to add nine. -- at night. >> i am just curious trend in our current political culture, i want to hide my head under a pillow. people are saying that they are going to move to canada. >> are you talking about information? there is terrific information out there. >> even with everything that has gone on, i still want to be an idealist. i want to think good things about our politics. it is all just bad. >> i want to turn this around on
you. sarah palin is not the president of the united states. barack obama is the president of the united states. maybe there is a half empty/how awful thing going on here. obviously, i think there is reason to be really concerned about our political culture. you cannot divorce that from our larger culture. you cannot divorce star journalism from the way it is delivered to us from what else is on those platforms, whether on the web or reality television. we're part of a larger fabric. i think the answer to your question about your head under
the pillow may have to do with concern about that larger fabric. i think that larger fabric that there is reason to be pessimistic more than i've ever thought. >> to more questions. >> mine will be little more philosophical and nobody has asked this yet about the deep threaoat. it seems like when you look back in history and you guys will be in the history books, for sure, that certain people came together at just the right time. this energy worked. you have the right editor. you have the right owner.
did these think that -- you knew him from before and could you have broken it without him? do you think it was divine intervention? >> we have so many sources. you could write a thesis that he was important. you could write a thesis that he was not important. we looked back on it and we are glad that he actually came forward and said -- that at answered in the history of this period is one of those things where people said, of course. that is logical. that is to it was. -- that is to it was. he did not give us primary data.
he was encouraging honest and i think that was very important. i think he was a source of comfort to the editors. weecertainly would have written watergate stories without him. >> our template was the following. very early, we got hold of a charge of the employees of the committees for reelection of the president. we got hold of a list of who worked at the white house and we started going to visit those people. that was the template. there were people in the investigation -- those were the basis of most of our information. >> i want to welcome you to columbus. have the.red to
i have two questions. since your careers spanned the same years of greenspan's career, had you thought about doing a biography of -- you have done that? i have read "age of turbulence" and he was pretty good at exposing what went on. there are some questions i still have. they are related to the history that happens during the clinton years and the transition. >> you have one big question. >> what happened to the $700 surplus? was it spent? does the surplus actually exist? >> you mean the $700 million -- do you mean the $700 million
surplus when he left office? i will give part of the answer and then bob can finish off. >> the war happened. the tax cuts kicked in at the same time as the spending for the war went up for it. it pretty much accounts for most of it. >> can i take two minutes and tell the story? we keep wanting to know the future. in fact, we do not. we never get the future right. when i did the second book on bush, it was about how he decided to go to war in iraq. he's standing in the oval office
and the has his hands in his pocket and i just passed, how do you think history will judge this iraq war? he kind of takes his hands out and shrugs and says, history, we will not know. we will all be dead. >> and with that, we want to thank you for having us. >> i knew he was not done. i did that for effect. >> you took me seriously? >> no. we have to get you on to your warm newspaper. -- home to your warm newspaper. [laughter] the really good news is that i
have the ending to the buck. the indians to the book are hard to find. -- endings to the book are hard to find. i was giving a talk in washington and the subject of your great biography, a woman in charge, hillary clinton was the other speaker. afterwards, she came up to me and said, i quote from your book all the time. i " so often, i think i should give you royalties. >> i stupidly said, no, no. i should have said, how much? she said she quotes the book -- the end of the book when you ask about history. why'd you " that? -- white you " that? she said, you cannot be president of the united states
and talk like that. she is hitting her fist. george bush is a fatalist. he gives himself over to history, we do not know. you cannot think and talk like that and be president. i said, -- she said, no, no, you cannot. george washington would never talk like that. thomas jefferson would never talk like that. bildt would never talk like that. >> what would jesus do? >> then i thought, washington, jefferson, bill, the new mount rushmore. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> president obama will be holding his first meeting to lead a panel investigating the gulf of mexico oil spill. bob gramm and william reilly a. president obama will brief reporters after the meeting, live on c-span at 12:15. eric holder is headed for the gulf coast today to see areas affected by the spill. he will be meeting with attorneys general from louisiana, alabama, and mississippi. we will have his remarks to reporters a little later in the day. more about the oil spill and a live simulcast of the radio show. that is at 1:00. the four candidates running for the republican nomination for governor of south carolina debate tonight at 7:00 on c- span.
is government broken? that is the focus of a panel discussion today hosted by the brookings institution. live coverage gets underway at 1:00 on a companion network c- span-2. >> david cameron field questions from members of parliament in his first prime minister's questions as the head of a coalition government. >> public television's ray suarez recently talked about race in america. the correspondent talked about his experiences. from durham, n.c., this is about 55 minutes. [applause]
>> for the record, i am not a lawyer. i am not a political scientist. i am not a social lot -- sociologist. as a reporter, i am a member of the craft that is expected to be bits of all of these things and after the fact, usually judged to have died badly. i am flattered to be asked to be at this conference after a career that auks -- are so great period of tremendous change in the united states. i had been given an unusual access to people at their best and there worse. as they talk themselves into
being. bounce off of events that they are witnessing or living through and talking to me to make sense of it. it is a privilege and one that is especially handy when trying to understand how race operates as a variable in this country. it is also a peculiar experience to do this all as a reporter who is identified in public as a latino of some sort. when people take me into their confidence, it is sometimes would be assumed comfort of speaking to someone who is a safe recipient of difficult messages to deliver regarding race. i cannot tell you the number of times white people have felt over the years remarkably comfortable saying things about black people to me and some of the leak, black people have seen
%oough of a kindred spirit the comparable saying stuff about white people to me. it is a peculiar plot average -- it is a peculiar privilege. i have also had this unusual front seat working as a journalist in new york, los angeles, chicago, and washington. four cities would difficult racial history, both in the distant past and in the recent past. both of which -- all of which make a claim on the way people construct a racial landscape. i have watched as migration has changed the makeup of populations of small municipalities on the south side of los angeles county. leaving longtime black political godfathers in charge of mexican
majority cities. many mexicans and mexican- americans who had moved into previously eastern european neighborhoods sided with the regulars in opposing it chicago's first black mayor. then, after his death, from their enthusiastic support behind richard daley. i have watched as my own home town, brooklyn, has taken up again its historic role as the ingathering of nations as new york city became home in the decade after the a hard seller the immigration bill and its
amendments to people from every corner of the planets in stunning numbers. today, on the same streets where there are meat markets, drug stores, and pharmacy is written and little english ones under it and veiled women are willing strollers down the street. -- wheeling strollers down the street. this is a time of breathtaking change. unlike the way it has to regard people from pakistan or india or new populations coming in from poland or syria, the latino
migration has been so much more broadbased, so much more numerous, and complicated because it puts america in the position of having to deal with the physical reality of a mixed race people. to try to tease out race and its operation from immigration and its operation is a fool's errand. our immigration system has initialize from the beginning -- rationalized from the beginning. it does not look that way when you stand in 2010 and look over your shoulder because irish, crayons, greeks, italians, jews from all across eastern europe, stand in our culture as whites, even though many did not and many were legally defined as other than whites.
because we have a system where its new practice accumulates like the mountain and jurisprudence accumulates in size and haft, we actually have a mountain of court cases that are adjudicated whether people from saudi arabia or afghanistan or armenia were actually white and it was not social practice, but court cases that dictated how we were supposed to proceed. why? because all the arguments and legal proceedings were in reaction and already rationalized way of viewing newcomers. one of the challenges for this conference is to peer ahead to 2020 and beyond and try to sort out whether history is going to repeat itself. tension, social conflict, racism, and eventually
assimilation and convergence. in the case of many immigrants, lightning -- lightning -- over time. recently, samuel huntington of died and the occasion of his death. he called him one of the greatest historians of the second half of the 20th century. his parting shot to america was to very openly and question whether latinos would get the knack, the dance steps of being american citizens. he said, there is no americano
dream. there is only an american dream and it is an anglo-saxon construction. this is a stunning thing for a historian something -- to say something so a historical. i have long since learned that that kind of thing happens more than we like to admit. i was having a long back-and- forth recently with the director for the center of the immigration studies and we retreating statistics and perspectives on language acquisition, assimilation, criminality. the guy is a cultural warrior and does not come empty-handed to a conversation like this one. he finally pulled me up short with a simple direct question. he said, what is immigration for?
he added a -- if you strip away the hand-wringing about preserving the culture and the protectionist anxieties about saving american jobs and a real hostility from those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder who have to compete with new arrivals, why should we, why do we let in more legal immigrants than any country on the planet either by tolerance or by incompetence, enormous numbers of undocumented immigrants. why do we do it? what is immigration for? do we do it because we are nice? that is not often been a reason why we have done anything as a country over the last two under
years. if we were nice, maybe we would not make it so hard to get here in the first place. we're beefing up the border patrol and deploying hundreds of thousands to create new detention camps where undocumented language before adjudication. is it because we need workers? the numbers go up when we need them. they certainly do not go down to zero we do not need them. apart from sentimentality, we did not have a good vigorous debate about why more people should come, under what circumstances, and whether we can ever say, no. this puts our close neighbors, the mexicans, in a very peculiar position. one day you'll turn on the television and there are talking heads arguing and you will find out that when mexicans come here, they take away our jobs.
in another context, over another political issue, you'll find that mexicans down in mexico are taking away our jobs. it is really tough -- i am not a mexican myself, but i feel kind of sympathetic, what is a mexican to do because when they come here, they take our jobs. when they stay home, they take their jobs. apart from flooding suspended over the rio grande, it is hard to know what they're supposed to do. because of the dysfunctional relationship to a human trend that will be created the modern united states even after implementing the law that was supposed to get us out of this mess, the immigration reform and control act of 1986, meant to regularize the status of those who were here in slam the door on the rest, we ended up with 12 million more. that number has been revised
downward to some 10.8 million. but you get the idea. making durable -- durable longitudinal change is hard when we have just modeled ahead with no plan. the wealth enjoyed by americans over the last several generations was created in parts by policies and historical circumstances that were accidental and not planned. at a time of rapid industrial growth, at an open door political policy prevailed. the doors slammed shut before the economy dropped into serious depression in the 1930's. emerging from the 1940's, with one of the few intact industrial plants left on planet earth, a world market hungry for staff. let's hope we do not need depression and world war two
figured out again this time in the 21st century. like the years just before the first world war, we have reached a peak in the number of foreign- born in our population. just over 10%. since the population is so much bigger, a much larger number in absolutes. the, from a much wider places than they did in the ellis island. in 1850, the top 10 birth countries of foreign-born americans in order of numbers -- what would you guess was the number 1 berth country for foreign-born americans in 1850? it was ireland. in descending order, and germany, great britain, canada, france, switzerland, mexico, norway, the netherlands, and italy.
switzerland was ahead of mexico. in 2000, the top 10 countries of foreign born americans was by a tremendous margin, mexico, china, the philippines, india, cuba, vietnam, all salvadoran, correa, the dominican republic, and canada. no european countries in the top 10 in 2000. three of countries of foreign birth in every census from 1850-1980. now it is not even in the top 10. the first nine on the list of developing countries only canada has an advanced industrialized economy and a middle-class majority.
of the 10, only 1 cents caucasian immigrants to the united states. we get a tremendous advantage from many of these immigrants of highly educated people with much saw after skills. in many cases, they are who they were 150 years ago. pour, poorly educated, agrarian, at an incredibly hard working. they are also younger than other americans sell more likely to pay into old age support schemes like social security. they're also more likely to have more children. on the one hand, they reinvigorate neighborhoods that declined in postwar decades. but they also require a higher degree of input from social services, more likely to use public schools, and more likely to the uninsured or underinsured. and lead in the house that has a low enough assessed value to not
pay much into the municipal coffers. lest we fall into the trap of thinking that it is just going to stay that way, let's go back to the list of 1850. norway, france, the netherlands. there were three of the countries on that list. in the mid-19th century, when they were sending immigrants to the united states, at their workplaces of grinding, a horrifying proverb -- poverty. terrible war and social dislocation. today, all three are among the richest per-capita income economies in the world and every year, all three are vying for the top spots in the u.n. tables on standard of living,
education, and health care. as someone who is trying to be a close observer of american culture and someone who writes a lot about american history, i am amused by the idea that this country's unity, cohesiveness, function as a unitary state is under threat from people who speak languages other than english. 93% of americans said they speak english. threats of an incipient quebec seem a little overblown. but let's take that on as an idea. let's walk to the ghettos of american cities, hundred years ago. keep in your open keep an ear open for japanese, chinese, italian, polish, ukrainian in the crowded streets of
baltimore, pittsburgh, san francisco. the newsstands are bursting with newspapers in all these linkages and more. multiple his papers because in many of these languages, you had to have one paper for regular organization democrats and another one for socialist and another one for union members. the grandchildren of the children who ran those streets are some of the same people worrying openly about what these new immigrants will mean to our old country. from all the data, my best advice is to not worry. if you watch spanish-language television or listen to creole radio in miami or brooklyn, what do you hear? every couple of minutes, you hear ads for night schools, take language courses, cd rom language courses for the whole family. no one is developing these
products, pain for the ads, and buying the courses for kicks. no latino family doubts that the acquisition of english for themselves and for their families is absolutely vital for climbing, the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder to get someplace better. if you look at -- 7% of foreign- born latinos told researchers that it is possible to get ahead in america, only speaking spanish. take a look at queens, new york. we do have a substantial challenge for today. how does a large remodeling will society respond to this
rehabilitation of some of the spanish speakers? we all have to be thinking hard about this. i would point out that barbara mikulski and geraldine ferraro and mario cuomo and michael dukakis and jennifer lopez and raquel welch and kirk douglas, all speak english. i think we are willing to stipulate that. when their parents and grandparrnts were brought here, they faced a long hard slog -ptoward gaining enough englisho get by. the networks that helped them 100 years ago did not transfer well to a 2010. hometown societies, the private
voluntary agencies language schools, the armies of wellborn, well educated women who moved like an army and the lower east side and to humboldt park in chicago and neighborhoods in philadelphia. those were the only jobs that educated women could get in those days. those kind of aids are a little harder to find today. the predominance of latinos among immigrants from everywhere provides a special challenge for our school system. social service agencies, law enforcement, and stable longitudinal status of neighborhoods in metropolitan areas. latino immigration to the united states has been high during an era of great hundred indian -- the american markets. agricultural, service, light industry.
also a time suggested by a lot of research of narrowing horizons, a stalled escalator into the american opportunity structure. great difficulty getting ahead. there is social science data that paul's up the sky. that suggests that it is much harder for poor people to become middle-class that it was in previous generations. the lines between socio-economi+ strata in our society are hardening. that is frightening thing for america to contemplate. did a great education to feed into an economy with few or no jobs and not only don't you start that feedback loop between education and the advancement going, it also stet -- since a very strong message back into your family that asks, was this
worked doing? the their practical questions of paying for an education that students are increasingly going into debt to acquire really have yet to be settled. many families have seen a lack of pay off in an older child may make a very different decisions for the younger children in the family. we are talking about the youngest median age population group. the median age for all latinos in the united states, foreign and native-born, is 27. compared to 44 whites and 31 for blacks. that your profile means the latino population is already overstated at every level of schooling except for college and university. 15% of the population k-12. at the nursery level, where access issues disproportionately
down then latino presence in preschool, it is already outstripping the percentage of latino presence in the population as a whole. one of three latino adults in the united states has less than ninth grade education. in the u.s. over all, the 30% of adults over 25 have a four-year college degree. among latinos over 25, 10%. for the last decade, a latino family income has been higher than black family income, but not because of greater earning power, but because on average, that there are more working adults in house -- latino households. since the late clinton years, the only way millions of minority workers to get a raise was to give themselves one by working more hours at roughly
the same level of pay. this leaves these families particularly pressed, too busy putting the fire out that french to destroy everything they have worked for thus far to think about 2012, 2016, and 2020. if a family friend came to this country from peru and met her husband in washington, an immigrant from el salvador. the struggle to save money comiig to get legal, to start a family. at the peak of the housing boom in the d.c. area, they bought a house in the distant virginia suburb because of affordability and because of the reputation of the schools. like so many minority families to fear that if they did not buy right now, the boom was just going to continue off into the future and pass them by, making it impossible for them to buy a house, they instead squeezed
through the front door of this house, spending every penny they say. they have adjustable rate mortgage, home values are plunging in their areas and each of them is working fewer hours today than they were a year ago. so far, and they had just managed to hold on. as much as they're worried, frightened, under pressure, there is a part of rebecca story that leaves us sounding more bewildered than anything else. she has done what the voice is large and small in the culture have been saying to do since she came to the country as a teenager. ricard, get legal, keep your nose clean, investing your kids, save, getting house, and now the whole house of cards looks like it is about to come down.
macroeconomics use models -to understand what is going on. the trials of rebecca's family are simply part of the repricing of real estate. if they lose their house, it will lower -- equilibrium will be reached. the foreclosed family will rebuild. in the near term, my friend will not be able to support her teenage son's wish to go to college. education is going to make up the lion's share of the r's earning power and years to come. when you compare in the earning power of 30-year-old men and 40-
-- when you compare, white men earn the most, latino and black men earning less. when you correct for education, however, almost the entire gap between latino workers disappears. less of a gap between black and white workers disappears. we still have plenty of work to do regarding economic discrimination in this country, but the bottom line is pretty good for latinos. so far, they have lagged, graduate from high school with higher rates than they used to,
but rate that still lack black and white students. at of that -- at of those graduates, a smaller subset heads to college. the smaller fraction still manages to graduate with either a two-year or four-year credential. for thousands of families, it is the worst of both worlds. they spend the money to get one, too, three years of higher education, derived little or none of the economic benefits of the subsequent years of education, and still have to pay for it over time. to me, there is nothing more tragic than talking to a low- wage worker who is paying off a higher education loan without a credential. that is just terrible. it is hard to think of the worst outcome. in school systems around the country, schools have had to
come up with approaches to their new latino families to get them involved in their children's education. because these adults work more hours per week than their black- and-white counterparts, coming up with a programmatic response has been challenging and impossible. in some places, it has taken the form -- grinning young mothers into the attic -- schools with their children and teaching them to read and write english along with their children. the payback does a parent that is actually able to help their own children in school and becomes more attached to the school institutionally and is more employable. the social security system has to dial back benefits right about the same year the united states becomes a majority /minority country. that should focus all your attention i hope i am around.
i hope all of us are around. it is unlikely everybody in the room will be around. 2041 is when the social security agency is saying they will have to cut back on benefits. 2042 is when the euro at -- the bureau says we should have a big national party to welcome the majority/minority country. the numbers should focus our thinking on the millions of latinos in america's schools today. their ability and the ability of their brothers and sisters still to come, to pay into social security, will tell the tale of how that program, the program on which millions of americans will rely for on a decent life in the later life, is able to meet the challenge of the demographic
tidal wave that is about to break over america's head. thereupon to be an awful lot of old white people -- there are going to and be an awful lot of old white people in the decades to come. when the highest metrics in the datasets around education has to do with the last great of school completed. if he finished eighth grade, your kids are most likely to leave school after the eighth grade there to finish college. bp finished college, and your children are most likely to finish college. no big surprise there. as all of you know, correlation is not causation. i actually have that tattooed on my arm. the challenge for everyone who cares about the country's future is how do you break that correlation? how do you push back against
family effects? have you created an environment away from the home that both supports and reinforces what comes from the home that issof value and worth retaining, like working knowledge of a foreign language. anyone trying to sit down with a blank slate and answer that question with a system built from scratch would never come up with what we have got today. a system very heavily based on educational funding from real estate taxes that the kids who were prescient enough and smart enough and wise enough to be born to parents who lived in high-value housing could count on more secure school funding than those who arguably need more intervention from local public schools, will have less money to get it. within larger school districts
that contained a great extremes of poverty and wealth, chicago, new york, boston, washington d.c., we worship at the altar of the god of equity and fairness by the finding all the kids in signed an urban system the same way, even though deep down, we know that it cost of 25 kids in a high poverty neighborhood has very different needs from a cost of 25 who have to college- educated parents, their own internet equipped computer, a house full of books, magazine subscriptions, and so on. except for special needs children, you could arguably give that higher socioeconomic level of classroom in an urban public school even fewer resources and the standardized test scores would not change very much at all. talk to receive your to conclude that by third grade, better off kids are three years ahead of
minority kids. i cannot tell you the number of education congress is i have been to where this daaa is reported seriously and moved on instead of everybody saying, stop for a second. third grade? how are they three years ahead by third grade? instead of that being a stopped the music moments, i will not call it what i would call its it this was not being recorded for c-span, it is a stunning moment. instead, it is just reported as another data sets and we move on. the more household income, the more kids get help with homework. the more a kid is read to and encouraged to read for recreation and pleasure, the more household income, the more a child is spoken to.
the kinds of words used, encouragement versus commands, scolding and discipline, for example. the future that we are cooking up for ourselves in now, were permanently stuck working class who cannot climb the ladder, where some kids learn chemistry with hardly any working equipment in the room and some learn in labs for you could put the item -- we are leading this recorded program to go live to the rose garden. president obama will brief reporters. >> i just met with these two gentlemen, bob grant and bill riley. they will be the national commission on the bp oil spill in the gulf. this is now the greatest environmental disaster in our history. their job, along with the other
members of the commission, will be to thoroughly examine this bill and its causes, so we never faced such a catastrophe again. we're continuing our efforts on all fronts to contain the damage from this disaster and extend to the people they need to confront this ordeal. we have already mounted the largest cleanup efforts in the nation's history. we continue to monitor minute to minute, the efforts to halt or capture the flow of oil from iraq to bp well. until the well is stopped, we will multiplied our efforts to meet the growing threat and to address the widespread and unbelievably losses experienced by the people along the gulf coast. what is being threatened, what is being lost, it isn't just a source of income, but a way of life. there are now more than 20,000
men and women in the region working round-the-clock to contain the cleanup. the of authorized more than 17,000 national guard members to respond across four states. more than 1700 vessels are currently abating -- aiding in the response and will insure that any and all responsible means to contain this week are pursuits as we await the completion of the two relief wells. i've also directed homeland security secretary and admiral thad allen to triple the manpower in those places where oil has hit shores or is within 24 hours of impact. economic response continues as well. we've ordered bp to pay economic injury claims and will make sure they deliver. the small business administration has stepped in to help businesses by approving loans. we of station doctors and scientists across the region to
look out for people's health and monitor any halifax felt by clinic workers and residents. we will obsolete continued to hold bp and any other responsible parties accountable for financial losses. our responsibility does not end there. we have an obligation to investigate what went wrong and to determine what reforms are needed so that we never have to experience a crisis like this again. it's a lot our books are insufficient, the laws must change. if oversight was inadequate, oversight has to be reformed. if our laws were broken, leading to this death and destruction, my solemn pledge is that we will bring those responsible to justice on behalf of the victims of this catastrophe and the people of the gulf region. when interior secretary can salazar took office, for example, he found an agency that
had been plagued by corruption for years. corruption that was underscored by a recent inspector general's report that uncovered appalling activity that took place before last year. he immediately took steps to clean up that corruption, but this oil spill has made clear that more reforms are needed. for years, there is been a far too cozy relationship between oil companies and agencies that regulate them. that is why we've decided to separate the people who permit offshore leases, and collect revenue, and to regulate the safety of drilling. we replaced a six-month moratorium on drilling in deep water oil and gas will -- wells and the outer, now shelf. we're making a series of changes. the review recommended aggressive new operating standards and requirements for offshore energy companies which will put in place. i've also called on congress to pass a bill to provide critical
resources to respond to this spill. all that has to do with dealing with the crisis at hand. it is critical that we take a comprehensive look at how the oil and gas industry operates and how our government oversees those operations. that is why i signed an executive order establishing this national commission and i am extraordinary pleased that they have agreed to be its cochairs. of served two terms as florida's governor. he represented florida in the senate for almost two decades. he earned a reputation as a champion of the environment, leading the most extensive environmental protection efforts in the state's history. bill was chairman of the world wildlife fund and s also deeply knowledgeable of the oil and gas industry.
i cannot think of to people who will bring greater experience or judgment to this task. i personally want to thank both of them for taking on this arduous assignment, for demonstrating a great sense of duty to this country. very soon, i'll 0.5 other distinguished americans to join them. they will work alongside other ongoing reviews, including an independent examination. i have authorized a commission to uphold public hearings and request information from the government. i just said in our meeting, in doing this work, they have my full support to follow the path for every male lead. without fear or favor. i am directing them to report
back in six months with options of how we can mitigate the impact of any future spell that results from offshore drilling. as a result of this disaster, lives have been lost. businesses have been decimated, communicated -- minis and according known great hardship now face the specter of sudden and painful economic dislocation. untold damage is being done to the environment. damage that could last for decades. we owe all those who have been harmed a full and vigorous accounting of the events that led to the worst oil spill in u.s. history. only then can we be assured that deepwater drilling can take place safely. only then can we except for the development of these resources as we transition to a clean energy economy. only then can we be confident that we have done what is necessary to prevent history from repeating itself. thank you very much, everybody.
>> from the white house, president obama, to some live video of the oil spill. eric holder is headed to the gulf coast today to seek areas affected by the spill. he'll be meeting with attorneys general from alabama, louisiana, mississippi. we will have his remarks to reporters in little later in the day. the one line to see it our archive material, we have hearings and briefings from the white house and bp and links to the live feed of the oil spill video. it confine that at -- you can find that act c-span.org.
that is in just over an hour from now at 1:00. the four candidates running for the republican nomination for governor of south carolina debate tonight. we will have live coverage at 7:00. is government broken? that is the focus of a panel discussion today hosted by the brookings institution. live coverage gets underway at 1:00 on c-span-2. on this morning's "washington journal, paul tucker talked about the north american free trade agreement and what it means for future trade agreements. this is about 40 minutes. our topic is nafta. and also daniel griswo of the cato institute. what impact do you think that nafta will have on the u.s.
economy? guest: it has beenin effect for 15 years. i think the impact has been positive. more importantly not only on the economy, but on foreign policy. the u.s. is 17 times larger than mexico. . . it has a multi-party democracy. they are on theoad to modernization. it has been a modest success. host: todd tucker, is it working? guest: agreements of nafta combined with the worl trade organization which is global, you can see that the u.s. has said burgeoning trade dficits and a loss of 5000 -- 5 million
manufacturing job a significant chunk of it is due to nafta and. the real purpose of agreements like nafta and to some extent the world tra organization is to make the world safer for multi-national corporations and give them enhanced rights in developing countries, to challenge an firemen to policies and oher public interest laws. host: in 2008 $1.10 trillion in u.s. goods and services between the u.s. and nafta parers -- about $480 billion in exports compared to 2009. guest: of course, the recession had a loto do with those numbers. over the history of nafta our trade has grown faster with nafta partners then overall. the agreement was never going to cure the trade deficit.
imports are a great blessing to low and middle-income families. the first five or six years after the passage of nafta were some of the best in our economy sister. we added half a million macturing jobs. the output was up 30%. the recent troubles ha more to do with the recession and business cycles. it was not just about corporations. our investment in mexico has been a matter-- a modest $2 billion in masako. the giant sucking sound that ross perot predict never happened. nafta has been good for the u.s. and for foreign policy. ost: what about jobs? guest: it never would have had an effect on the unemployment rate. it has created better jobs,
betteraying bs, higher level jobs. yes, some jobs have moved to mexico and other countries, but they tend to be the lower- paying manufacturing jobs. nafta has helped us to move up modestly. it has been great for mexico. host: do you agree guest: the real factor is that when nafta was passed the members of congress voted for, were promised, that we would have greater export and an increasing trade surplus with mexico that would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. we have seen a bilateral deficits grow and jobs lost along with that instead. it would be nice if we could ree now that there was no such promise, but these promises were made. it has not worked out. now we're talking about havi
enough-style agreements with tiny countries like panama. what is the possible job creation reason for doing an agreement with panama? it is more about protecting u.s. companies with subsidiaries there whowant to take advantage of the deregulation there. host: take ford motors or general motors where parts of the countries are made in canada, shipped to the u.s., and then we ship our cars to canada for sales there. guest: yes, and the is nothing wron with increased trade. host: doesn't it to create more jobs? guest: certainly. theebate when it comes to tradegreements is trade under white rule stack whether the best les govern global economy. host: where would u draw line
on these rules? guest: these trade agreements have credit rules that benefit the u.s. -- let's not demonize nafta. in this recession something that did not happen is we did not engage in a kind of 30's protectionism that was so destruction ism. destructive. let's not decrease true. canada and mexico are canada and mexico are the number one export markets. ohio was the focal point during the recent campaign. 280,000 manufacturing jobs depend on exports. let's not demonize trade with our closest neighbors.
host: our topic is nafta. our two guests, todd tucker and daniel griswold. susanjoins us from florida. caller: to the gentlen from the cato institute, could you please tell me tod your organization? guest: yes, it is funded entirely by private individuals. they share our belief and limited government, free markets. most come in the form of checks of $100.500 dollars. we get no support from governments. we are iependent and non- partisan. host: has any nation become more
prosperous without free trade? guest: it is hard to find. some of the poorend most dangerous nations like north korea are isolated from the global economy. the trade is not the only part, but it is an important part of development. host: this is your is saying that nafta has killed off, have to kill off the manufacturing base. guest: the promise was that would be a great boon to the manufacturinbase. it has not been the case. the attitude across the country has a strongeeling that nafta has had a detrimental impact. guest: let'snot let th perfect the enemy of thed. we're manufacturing more today than before nafta wasasse
we have a strong manufacturing base and a strong agricultural sector. but we have gten more efficient. u.s. workers are manufacturing more stuff than 15 years ago. host: the two organizations represented here are the global trade watch and the cato institute. caller: good morning. on the nafta thing, i feel that nafta is bad for the u.s. ever since it began all the manufacturing jobs have disappeared. most of the jobs that i no see
our lower-paying. at oneime we bri crasher everything here and had high- paying jobs. i was last down in mexico 1968 and the last time i was down there i was blown away at how many american companies like chevrolet and ford motors, washing machines companies now, althese american flags flying -- all these companies used to manufacture in the u.s. ever since bill clinton passed this as a guarantee to better jobs, there are not. the u.s. itself is becoming a third world country. host: anthony, thanks for the call. if not nafta, then what? guest: there are any number of alternatives. the majority of house democrats have signed onto a biparsan bill, the trade act. it would better balance
manufacturing job creation, environmental concerns, and other public interest concerns. it would bounce them with a worthy goal of export expaion. there are many alternatives on th table. host: we are joined from middletown, new jersey. guescaller: nafta is part of the problem. but we have the most insane trade arrangement. i don't know what the gentleman from the cato institute is talking about as far as exporting manufacturing goods except for products of destruction, but the only thing we produce now is mang money from other people's money. it protects large corporations and their bottom line, but it has not created or sustained jobs.
the most successful corporations top to bottom have gone overseas. hershey's now says they have to manufacture in china. i work in the fashion industry for yes. when we imported, it was accessors. when we imported leathers that we did not make your it was lowered and its tariff than someing we made up to of cotton. we protected the manufacturing base as part of our economy. guest: it is on her mindthat somehow naphtha has decimated the u.s. many fashion. we recently h a book at the cato institute -- herere some basic facts. we are manufacturing about 30% more than we were when nafta passed i terms of volume. billions of pharmaceuticals and
semiconductors, automobiles. we still produce up to 10 million per year. possible acivil aircraft, heavy appliances. we remain a manufacturing hub. we are the world's nth 1 manufacturing place in terms of value, but there are 5 million fewer jobs. nafta has helped us to move up the value chain. we are producing fewer shirts and shoes, but those jobs did not pay the will. we're producing me pharmaceutical and semiconductors, and higher and good for the workers are more productive and get better pay. host: we are not making any clothing in the u.s. to speak of guest: we're making some, but imports the majority, which means lower prices for consumers.
host: in 2009 the most recent numbers, we exported abt $204 billion to canada, andabout $130 billion to mexico, compared to imports of $225 billion from canada, and $176 billion from mexico. guest: yes, so if you are obsessed with exporting as much as you can and importing as little as you can, then you are upset. i think that imports are good for those who spend the highest amount of their budget on basic things like clothing. therogressis are picking the pockets of the poorest americans. one reason that hershey is lookin abroad is because of our sugar quotas that make them pay
two times or more in tariffs. host: charles is joining us fromharlotte, north carolina. caller: good morning. as far as the balance of trade is concerned, if we subtract what we pay each of those two countries for oil, what is the balance of trade? host: todd tucker? guest: i don't know the exact answer, but he makes a good point. a large part of that is energy. our two nafta partners are one of two of the most important sources of energy for the u.s. we should think of that the next time we think of picking a trade fight or reopening nafta for negotiatio i think iwould be a huge mistake.
it is one thing it would jeopardize u.s. exports and access to global energy. host: the problems that there are few work blue-collar jobs because it became cheaper to produce a lower-tech items outside of the u.s.. >guest: that is right. i'd think it is pretty offensive have lost those jobs. and think this is promoting the wrong kind of discussion. what we should talk about is how we will create and fosters the industries of the future. how we will create clean jobs here at home. anchorages policy makers to think of the lowest common denominators. what can we do without potentially up sitting -- upsetting this rule. how to recreate jobs, not just celebrating the few jobs that
have not yet managed to be outsourced. host: our topic is nafta and the effect on the economy. michael joins us from san diego. independent line. caller: good morning. mr. tucker, i am sorry i do not have a question for you. i want to focus on mr. griswald. it sounds like you really want the response ability of the united states to help the mexican economy to grow and prosper. you said earlier that all of these nine things have helped the mexican economy -- all these nafta things have helped the mexican economy and helps middle and lower class people in america. i was wondering if you consider yourself low or middle class and how much you make a year? guest: let me assure you that i am pretty solidly middle-class
and northern virginia where i live. i just look at the numbers. it has been good for mexico and good for the united states and the u.s. economy. let's not with the past, let's look at the future. what jobs will we create for the generation coming up? ltural nation, no longer and manufacturing nation. we're basically the middle- classservice sector nation. since nafta passed, two-thirds of the new jobs added have been in service sectors were the average pay is higher than in manufacturing. we have not been swapping out gh-payg manufacturing jobs for w-paying service jobs. theconomy of today and tomorrow is primarily a service
economy and information and technology economy. we need to prepare for the future. host: daniel griswold is with the cato institute. he earned his master's from the loon school of economics an is the author of "mad about trade." todd tucker is a graduate of george washington univerty, studied at cambridge in england and ishe author of a booklet the rise and fall of fast track trade economy." caller: i was just curious. i wonder if either of you have registered in but, "employment, interest, and money/" it is in reference to the need for the consumer. it is an allegory. everyone takes it into their
head and leaves the country. henceforth nafta has looked as without a consumer and it is really causing a lot of damage. i'm nvous, and i will let it go at that. guest: i thinthe promise of good economic policy addresses the kind of concerns you're ising. does it help to boost purchasing power, real wages, produce equality? we have seen under the current policy those issues have not been addressed the way they should have been. the promises by nafta proponents have not panned out. guest: i see it quite differently. free trade is about the consumer's intests. it is about bringing vigorous competition. trade is the anti-trust policy. without it we a left at the mercy of domestic monopolies.
it is ironic that so-called consumer organizations are coming down on the side of monopoly interests like the sugar producers who like to charge two and three times that of world prices. i have read the book. i think we should get rid of the remaining trade barriers which would be a taxcut for low and middle income americans who are paying highariffs on the food and clothing they buy. free trade is done more to help struggling families in difficult times than y stimulus program from washington. host: should we have higher tariffs for trade coming in fro china? guest: we should be able to decide which industries we want to see as part of the american future. a policy with those goals, its
purchases locally, gives incentes for local production -- which should be able to do that. a trade agreemenshould not get in the way. host: the is robust argument on our twitter page. you can go to any wal-mart and most of the products are made in china or outside the u.s. -- the prices are low, but they're not made here in the u.s. uest: who was spping at wal- mart? if todd opens the door to trade barriers on any industry who says they are strategic, about three-quarters, it will mean higher prices for consumers. especially higher prices for low and middle-income families who depend on shopping at a big box retailer to make ends meet. imports go up in the fall because of all the stuff under the christmas tree.
host: have the unions given the average americ's a more livable ? guest: i do not think so. i think unfortunately unions are not playing a constructive role. i cannot say all unions, but one of them is stand up for higher trade barriers would allow -- come citizens to pay for higher prices. host: what about the thought of letting e marketplace play this through? guest: as a representative of a consumer group, the reason we are involved in the fight is t about the debate on prices. it has been about consumer safety. looking at e safety of procts coming into the countr looking at what type of
regulatory regime we are allowed to have to ensure safety of those products without beg subject to trade disputes. that is why did the consumer interest is not only about low- price. it is certainly about higher wages and also about consumer safety. guest: if it were all about consumer safety we would not be debating trade. our tre agreements allow us to have whatever safety regulations we think necessary. but they have to be non- discriminatory we cannot have a lower set for domestic and hirene for foreign producers. american consumers have been poisoned by beef from nebraska and peanut butter from georg. these trade agreements give is the mechanism to hold foreign governments accountable. guest: it is not only about non- discrimination. if it were, we would not be
here. the proemwith nafta and wto is they also set limits on what type of non-discriminatory regulation we can have. if it were oy about the import sit the regime, you are right that the door of us would be here. guest: it is an excuse for proteconism. host: a message from twitter. caller: hello. mr. todd was correct when he said we're making the world safer for international corporations. we he 14 active trade agreements, and a trade deficit with every one of them. when you talk about the lower paying jobs, tose with jobs that created the middle class in america where people could have a secure job. we have the biggest export --
exporting industry to china. we have made china the powerhouse of the world. i guess the greatest cosmic joke for those of us livingn texas ithat or border patrol uniforms are made in mexico. guest: certainly, i think the coern about what has been the net impact oade agreements is a valuable. if you look at the averagever the past three years with the 14 partnership mentioned, we have had a deficit with those countries. . they have not come true. guest: i think it is a mistake to focus on trade deficits as a scorecard for international trade. wheat benefit from imports. we should not apologize for
imports. they're good for consumers. they make sure we have lower prices and more variety. if you look at their 14 free trade partners we actually, i believe, according to the national association of manufacturers run a manufacturing surplus with those countries. our trade balances with the 14 trade agreement partners have actually been improving. most countries have had your trade barriers against the exports, and we have against their imports. they give us a level playing field that our politicians say they want. they want. i say we shod pass the trade agreements othe shelf with panama, colombia, and south korea, and we should negotiate more. the is -- these havbeen good for american workers and consumers. host: pot took represents global trade watch -- the watch todd
tucker represents a global trade watch. daniel griswold is also a specialistn this topic cou. caller: mr. griswold, you mentned pharmaceutical companies. don't you know that a pharmaceutical comnies have been bought up by foreign countries? also, almost erything i use in daily -- in the morning when i eat my food, they are from chile. even the dead of loss i use is from ireland. -- even that dental floss i use is from ireland. the only time i like to eat those with and candies and other rock and is -- ribbon cands
and rockdies, they are made in mexico,anada we hardly produce anything anymore. and of course, it all started with motels and hotels quite a number of years back. i don't even think we own our own of anything anymore. sure, it looks like ey are run by our own people, but america has been bought out. wake up. guest: ild just say that foreign investment is a good thing. we are better f because foreigners want to invest ithe u.s. economy. the are over 5 million amerans who work for foreign- owned companies and those jobs pay an average of 30%or than the avera wage. assets -- companies are still overwhelmingly owned by americans. it ia good thing when foreigners wanto invest in the u.s. a third of our automobile workers in thunited states
work for feign-owned affiliates. this is one reason why the import-export picture seems a little skewed. the kinds of things we impt are used for consur goods. just ask yourself ere you and your family would be if you add to by mid-and-usgoods. -- if you hado bwhy made-in- usa could spread the things that we export tend to be that we export tend to be exports, engin, and we remain in export our horse -- aexport it is just a different and more valuable mix of goods than we were producing 20 or 30 years ago. guest: the best in that chinese noodles are made in america. [laughter] host: we look good to wind up on the democrats' line.
good morning. caller: i have a statement to make. you truly in my opinion underestimate the intelligence and ability of the american public at large. we understand what is going on. and in the early 1990's ibm laid off of 30,000 people. within a year ge and laid off 15,000 people. the city is devastated, as many other cities are. then it is insulting to us for due to sit there and say corporations were the backbone of this country. that is what made the middle class. those corporations left the u.s. and want to china and mexico and indonesia. it is insulting to us.
please understand the cities' and peoples have been devastated. my daughter did not belong to a union. my question to you is this, you talk about service industries will replace the manufacturing jobs and pay just as well -- pindicate what services you are talking about. cguest: let's put this in context. president obama plan to double exports. that will create 2 million jobs according to the president's numbers. what you're talking about agreements with countries like panama. why retracting about a three paid model that has led to a rising deficit. it is simply inappropriate. americans are demanding that their president and policy makers articulate a vision of the future, which was does not
look like what we have experienced over the past decade with lost jobs. l notdd up my fan club in new york city. but i will say this -- u.s. corporations have struggled for a lot of reasons, and another grit co., eastman kodak, his laid off 30,000 workers -- another great co., eastman kodak, as that of 30,000 workers, and it has to do with digital cameras. would you think of a politician who said that we need to ban the sale of --hat would you think of a politician, said that we need to ban the sale of digital cameras to save jobs at kak? yowould say they are crazy. yet the logic behind trad barriers is the same faulty logic. ask people where they work. the vast majority of work in the service sector -- health care,
education, information servicc, business and professional services. of those jobs form the backbone of the american middle class. we will not go back to the days of the 1950's where you could just have high school e grey and work for a manufacturing -- have a high school degree and work for a manufacturing company for the rest of your life. it is a cruel hoa to say that if you tinker with nafta, you will restore jobs in youngstown, ohio. host: twitter comment -- guest: you know, the mytof these agreements is that date or present a free mket. even dad would admit that a lot of the rules in -- dan would admit that a lot the rules go against the free market.
what these agreements do is set rules. it is not anything aboutreeing the market. it is just a different set of rules to benefit a different set of interests. host: charlotte, north carolina, is where the next caller comes from. caller: thank you. mr. tucker, thank you for defending our manufacturing bs. mr. griswold, i am a republican. i graduated from the university of massachusetts. we don't have no more manufacturing jobs. for example, you just said shoes. nike has an initiative that produces on average for $50. if you are on this television station defending nafta, you are defending the wrong stuff, sir.
they are affecting master's degrees, bachelor's degrees, and low-wage folks. [unielgible] we are losing our jobs by the thousands and millions. and we are not producing nothing. guest: again i just politely disagree. we are producing lots of stuff. we remain number one in manufacturg in terms of the value added, which is the best measure but let's not be nostalgic about the pre- announced that era. -- pre-nafta era. this is a long-term structural change in the u.s. economy did yes, it is difficult for worke who have lost their jobs because of trade. but for everorker that
is lostheir jobs because of trade, there are 30 who have lost jobs not bause of trade. so i have said th the for every person who has lost their jobs, but -- let's but symp -- sympathy for every personho was lost their js, but it is not the primary source of job loss. host: top experts between the u.s. and nafta partners is broken down in terms of industries, including manufacturing, agriculture, and plastic. we listen to francis from dallas, texas. caller: listening to these two gentlemen, i come to the opinion that they are imported, both of
them, were educated otherwise, and we need peopleho were born and educated in this country, in e grass roots, to put forth ids for this country. and also, all of t blue collar workers are not union workers. i think that the problem our i think that the problem our president has is that he thinks all middle-class blue-collar workers belong to unions. they don't. in my opinion, the state where they have had the biggest problem, or wher -- where they have the biggest problem are where they have the largest unions. gut: i think unions have had a tremendous contribution to helping build the middle class and address inequality and raise wages for workers across manufacturing and other industries. i am a union membeand i think that outside of manufacturing, unions have a role to play.
i would respectfully disagree that unions have not contributed. again, what we're talking about today is trade agreement and the imct agreements like nafta when inequality -- on inequality and wages. the results ha notn encouraging their. host:n e-mail -- "senator obama said he would do somethi about nafta out. does that went by the wayse." guest: he really just made a tremendous break from what we saw during democratic and republican and ministrations in the past a lot of folks are waiting to see what his trading agenda will ok like. certainly there are the isss on the top of the st -- health ca, financial reform, other maers. but i think that president obama will see over the nt two years
at clear articulation of what type of trade policy he will pursue. for instanc the trans-pacific partnership, an asian andatin america agreement. he has a crystal, a golden opportunity to implement the labor and environmental consumer protection vision that he campaigned upon. host: how does youngstown or detrt or bingham, the towns that have been hit hard,ther it is nafta or other factors -- many of these communities have be decimated over the last 20 years. how dohey come back? guest: fst, we need to recognize that was not nafta. these communities have been struggling for seral decades. to say tt if we tinker with nafta there ll b an industrial renaissance is just a cruel hoax. the president's basic demagoguery on the campaign trail against trade ran into the reality of running this nation.
you cannot serve the interests of the u.s. economy. -- you cannot serve the interests of the u.s. economy by raising trade barriers. it will complicate our relations with other countries. mexico and cada areoo cse with neighbors, -- are two close neighbors, closed for a pocy neighborso you want to start your administration by picking a gratuitous trade fight with them? does it serve the national interest? does it ser one or two or three narrow economic ctors? unionized workers and the private sector are less than 8% of worrs. 80 percent of workers were in the service sector. how about a trade policy that nefits them? that's not have the tail wagging the dog on trade policy -- let's not have the tail wagging the dog on trade policy. the bottom line is that we need free
>> we will simulcasts a live radio show about the oil spill in the gulf of mexico"and said new orleans with eric asher" is set to star in 20 minutes. bp is streaming live video from the gulf. a couple of stories related to this bill. "the associated press" reporting that president obama has an independent commission in giving the disaster. if laws are broken, those are as possible will be prosecuted. the coast guard is replacing that admiral that has been the federal on scene coordinator since the oil rig exploded. they will focus on hurricane
season. we have archive material from the last six weeks of oil spill coverage. briefings from the white house and bp and links to the live oil spill video. you can find that at c-span.org. we have your calls from this morning's washington journal. the front pe shores. the attorney general indicating justice department lawyers are examining whether there is malfeasance. also this morning, the front pa o "the new york times."
after the deadly raid she rides in jerusalem, israel facing intense condemnation. also indications that benjamin not -- and netanyahu, the trip has been cancelled. this is the rampage ofront pagea today." the gulf coast as the top killer-is hope. anger and frustration surged across the gulf coast today as
residents learned that the latest attempt to cap a renegade under water well had failed and that oil may keep gushing until at least august. the situation in north korea, writing from seoul, south korea, the sinking of the ship back on march 26 that killed 42 south korean sailors has prompted the government to throttle back on aid to the north and demand that the u.s. back sanctions before the u.s.. still legislator discussing holding of the turnover of military power to the military power by u.s. forces, which have had a large base here since the 1950 through 1953 korean war. we will begin with charles from all paso, texas. democrats line. good morning. caller: internationally when it
comes to foreign relations, we have nothing but trouble. but domestically we have nothing but trouble spots, but as far as economics are concerned at -- europe has fallen apart -- things are getting better on that and for us. the dollar is increasing and getting stronger. the euro is declining. they think they have bought themselves some time with the billion dollar bailout, but that is all they have done, bought themselves some time. it could get bad for europe. as far as that is real thing, i to bbc yesterday, and they had one of the women who are one of the head activist speaking to the broadcaster there. this woman -- it was a clear provocation is what it was against the israelis. the israelis did everything in
their power to get that aid to gaza. they told the globe and to go to a port in israel. they told her to go to a port in egypt. the egyptians would take care of it. the egyptian she refuse said they decided to run the blockade. we all know what happened. people lost their lives. the astor if she felt bad, and she said no. host: banks for the call. -- thanks for the call. he regretted the loss of life but said the soldiers have "defend themselves." little river, south carolina. what do you want to address? caller: this is real thing --
israel thing. if israel does it, it is terrible, the world ever appeared it is the media after rael. correa, the shank -- sink a ship. everybody is not up in arms over the world. we have to have a commission to see if we can have sanctions. and everybody has to steadyt. the u.n., they have to study it. but here, the jump right out on israel. unbelievable. muslims are bad for the world, they want to take over and nobody wants to understand that. host: y do i say that? caller: why do i sayhat. here is an example, in israel, they are just trying to be safe, keep their people from being killed. so, what are they doing? they are looking into ships that going to gaza.
people in gaza are trying to kill the people in israel, but we can't stop those people from checki ships. they need to check the ships to see what they are getting killed with. host: your sentiment is reflected in "the wall street journal." thisonclusion from "the wall street journal" -- billy is joining us from north carolina. good morning to you.
democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think -- more control over israel -- that will almost of the wor's problems. china will do more for north rea appeared we can't go round and say that israel can do what they want and then want everne el around the world to play by the rules. when the u.n. tells them anything, they don't do it. i've got nothing against israel. i really don't. they are an allyo us. but israel isot a part of the united states. it is not first over the interest of us. that is whe we are using our soldiers. if we are not careful, they will ha us in world war iii. this is real people, the jews are great people, but only the big time ones at control all ofhe finances here in america and i think it is very dangerous. if you look in the hr, in the
government, even the supreme court or what ever, it is disproportionate pro israel. host: the supreme court is predominantly cathic. caller: they have three is a row jews, have nothing against jews but they are not 1% of the population. host: bp set to try the risky strategy t contain the blow. yesterday indispositions submarine robach that will try to share of a collapse 21-inch riser pipe with a razor-like wire studdedith bit of industrial diamonds. if it is achieved, oicials will need at least a couple of days to position a dome like cap over the blood prevent thr, which failed to show -- shut offhe well when the deep water rise and will rig explode on april 20, killing 11 workers.
from "the new york daily news" is the sign of the cross commemorating the loss in the gulf coast region. the deadline is grand isle, louisiana. this year, the beach was deserted. john from arlington, virginia. focusing on the story from "usa today" -- a world of trouble. good morning. caller: a real issue is, if turkey goes to the other side on some of these issues, thiis
going to be stragic loss for the united states. quite frankly, we have a little bit to do with why the turks are moving the other way. in 2006 t israelis turned at is sent to the was a bder incident into a major aault on lebanese infrastructure and has a lot. everybody thought it you let it go for a while, they could go for a while, they could defeat has blocked -- hezbollah hezbollah was hurt but ended up stronger than ever. it 2009, gaza, hamas did not do a lot of damage, scared a lot of people and killed a couple. then the israelis launched a massiv invasion, a lot of destruction, killed maybe 1000 or 1400 people depending on what figures to go by and blockade of the ace. we over here kind of had the
same policy, let it go for a while, and that would be good. what happened was, the turks looked at it and the turks looked at what happened with the blockade, and they started moving in a different direction. cooperating with the isrealies, some rumors that it cooperated when they cooperate with the bombing of theuclear plant letting them fly over turkish territory. this gaza business, i did not think people understand the raid in 200and of blockinit afterwards, israel is not a little power anymore. it looks big and it does not look gentle. so i think even some of the guys on fox or pro israel, kind of understand now that the turks are moving in a different direction a if we lose turkey and to not respond somehow to
this over all crisis, which means a movement toward a general settlement over there, i think we will end up having the turks, iraans, a few other people on one side and the us and one or two other arab countries on the other. host: we heard from th turkish prime minister who did call it a bloody massacre. this is the front-page of "the wall street journal." flotla of salt spurs crisis. our conversation on line is twitter.com/c-spanwj. america ibecoming a drama queen -- mike is joining us from a story, new york. independent line. michael? caller: my mistry is ecumenical. i work with christian, jew, muslim, buddhist, for one world, not and a sense of a political thing but we don't have an old world, new world, third world,
there is one world that even goes beyond ouromprehension. we have to get rid o myths. i would like to see a one state solution. maybe we should have a state of an -- abraham,, where all the exist peaceably but we have toa- get rid of beth myth that israel is a democracy. it is not. host: what is it? caller: it is very much like jimmy carter said, a state of apartheid. a gross use of our military and other funding. theyre the largest recipient of foreign aid from the.s., $3 billion a year. host: but it is a democracy. the people elect their leaders. caller: it is notemocracy if u don't have equal rights and
travel and free speech and it just representation. host: what would you call that? caller: an apartheid state. there is a clear distinction where the guidelines or the lines set out have fostered a frenzy. unfortunately like a child that has been spoiled, it has just taken more and more. but the problem was not the establishment of israel, the problem was jewish people, like all other people, should have gotten their respect. and that the conclusion of world war ii, the germans, belgians, the french, the english, the u.s., all should have said, jews can live anywhere and instead we set up like a reservation. we put a false model out there
that usurps clie did -- usurped land. host: you are going back to the history and clearly there is lot dely rooted in th situation. bush -- but would you not call is routed close ally of the is routed close ally of the u.s. -- would you not call israel a close ally of the u.s.? caller: you have to look at what one means with allied. if an ally, meaning you work in cooperation for mmon goals, we have to question what has happened, especially since -- i want to go back to jimmy carter andis actions of bringing together on warsaw adopt and not the bag and -- anway sadat and menachim begen. we have seen an unraveling of
that atmosphere. host: i have to stop the on that point. appreciate your perspective, th morning from two new york tabloids, both focusing on the situation in the gulf war -- gulf coast. this is from "the new york post" -- as you can see the co-worker drenched in the oil. and the president in his news conference last week, and the poll numbers for president obama -- did you plug the hole yet, daddy? it is e president reading a book called "the secrets of effective leadership." "usa today" focusing on the world of troubles. kathleen is joining us from athens, ohio,ood morning. caller: i agree with the previous caller who was on the phone about israel, but i want to went -- mention three website since our mainstream media did not even touched thi international humanitarian flotilla before there was
violence. rachel madow -- cnn, nobody mentioned the flotilla when they left land flowing toward gaza. informedcomment -- if americans live the great place t get lirature and other information about the situation in israel, and another w site called -- mondeiss, his name is ilip weiss, he is jewish, he writes about the issue all the time and have great discussions. but i want to mention what the mainstream media is doing with it now. i turn on fox yesterday and i think his name is carl hammer -- host: charles krauthammer. caller: they were blaming, they call them the peaceniks, saying they were trying to cause